The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

It has been interpreted to allow abortions when the pregnancy will threaten the life of the mother. This was clearly the case here, so why wasn't it performed? They waited until the fetal heartbeat has stopped, but the pregnancy was deemed non-viable within three hours of her being admitted (which was LONG before the fetus died).

This is a fate I fear for this country. How many women need to die before we value the mother's life as much as the fetus? (And don't get me started about the conservatives cutting the programs for the children of single mothers...)

Republican Rep. Joe Walsh, running against Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, told reporters Thursday night that there should be no abortion exception for the "life of the mother" because "with modern technology and science, you can't find one instance" in which a woman would actually die, according to a radio station. Walsh, of course, is flat wrong.

Yes, it is flat wrong. And scary that people still think this way.

Women are more than baby-making machines. I'm more than a baby making machine. (If you want kids, great!! This is not an anti-kids rant)

I wish these pro-life people would consider ALL life, mother and child.